How will block / ignore / function over to general gameplay and trade?

Let´s say i run my tannery and leather armor shop in a node. During my hunts and trade routes, i encounter a very toxic player. This player ends up being blocked by me and put on ignore or whatever the feature is called.

Now...the question.

I have Blocked / Ignored Player X.
Player X comes to my stall. Can player X browse and shop even after i put him / her on block?

I would like to ask if a system as follows have been talked about, or considered?

* A player that owns / runs a store or stall, aka anything that sells items will have access to an ability to control their business. This by connecting their Block / ignore list to cross check the names of the player that want to shop.
* If the customer wanting to shop is blocked or ignored, the store will be closed to said player.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Dygz

LMFAO!!
I been KOS for stuff I've said in the forums way before now.
The only reason to block people in the first place is because they've caused you grief and diplomacy already failed.
I'm not going to regret blocking people I block.

Grihm

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.

You seem awfully picky to get into fights. I can understand that you are eager for PVP, but really...this is getting somewhat.... let´s say dodgy.

If i refuse you service, that is my right. For that, you threaten with killing me on sight, and destroying any of my caravans, and you will kill anyone farming for my store. And you will continue until i drop the block, and give a discount??

Then we know where you stand bud. Noted and remembered.

Just a personal suggestion. Perhaps dial down the level a bit, since you are starting to paint a decently less than good picture of yourself and your motives. You can for sure be a fully PVP oriented guild, and siege all day long. I salute you for it if you want that...but the debate is fully over when you draw this poorly chosen threat card. Threatening a player with ganking and harassments, because I choose to refuse customers MY service.

I´l just assume it was a poorly worded example.

Caeryl

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Dygz wrote: »

Cart before the horse. The reason to refuse service to a guild is because they KOS your caravans.

Yes, and the reason you are on KOS is that you refused service in this hypothetical situation.

Leaving a channel for diplomacy open is always going to be a stronger option than blocking people.
Like, I said blocking people is not a feature in the real world. You can take steps to reduce the channels people can go through to interact with you, but you can't prevent interaction.

Ashes is going to be much more dangerous than the real world because the punishment for murder is much less harsh. Even if you got your block feature for sales, you might find that it is not worth using for these reasons.

You can block interaction in real life though. A shop owner can bar someone from their store for bad behavior, why wouldn’t that option exist in player stalls?

For any Auction Houses, it’s a 3rd party seller so ofc the personalized buyer-bans wouldn’t apply, but freehold stalls and personal marketplace shops should have the option to blacklist a limited number of players.

Vhaeyne

Grihm wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

I feel like Ashes may have plenty of people willing to throw down over shop refusal. "Okay, you want to block my guild from buying your wears? Welcome to the KOS list." All of your caravans now get sieged (Cutting down your supply), and you have to constantly watch your back twice as hard. Even around your shop. You can't go out to farm or craft more because you just die.

You seem awfully picky to get into fights. I can understand that you are eager for PVP, but really...this is getting somewhat.... let´s say dodgy.

If i refuse you service, that is my right. For that, you threaten with killing me on sight, and destroying any of my caravans, and you will kill anyone farming for my store. And you will continue until i drop the block, and give a discount??

Then we know where you stand bud. Noted and remembered.

Just a personal suggestion. Perhaps dial down the level a bit, since you are starting to paint a decently less than good picture of yourself and your motives. You can for sure be a fully PVP oriented guild, and siege all day long. I salute you for it if you want that...but the debate is fully over when you draw this poorly chosen threat card. Threatening a player with ganking and harassments, because I choose to refuse customers MY service.

I´l just assume it was a poorly worded example.

Where do you get this idea that I am looking for a fight? I have played a number of competitive open world games in my past. That experience comes with a unique prospective about how people will behave in game worlds where things have value and there and next to no safe zones.

You want your block list so much that you can't see the downsides. When people like Noanni and me point out reasons for why your ideas are bad or why no rational actor would use your suggested feature. You act like we are looking for a future fight in the game, or are acting in bad faith. That is not what is happening. We are just pointing out flaws in your ideas.

People pointing out flaws in your ideas in not an attack on you, it is an attack on your ideas. If you bring ideas to the forums, expect some critique.

Vhaeyne

Caeryl wrote: »

You can block interaction in real life though. A shop owner can bar someone from their store for bad behavior, why wouldn’t that option exist in player stalls?

For any Auction Houses, it’s a 3rd party seller so ofc the personalized buyer-bans wouldn’t apply, but freehold stalls and personal marketplace shops should have the option to blacklist a limited number of players.

I hate to be the one to tell you this, but there is no magical force in reality that prevents someone from returning to an establishment when barred. If someone really wants to gain access to a place, they can, and they can do a lot of damage in the process.

Like I said, the penalty for breaking the law in such an extreme manner is very high in real life, yet these things still happen. In online worlds where the penalty is much much lower people will cause misery over the slightest thing. I have seen blood wars go on for weeks because someone found out a day later they had been charged slightly over market value for simple mats.

Steven even said it yesterday in the live stream. The corruption system is there to make it, so the game is not a complete gank box. In moments of passion if you want to go red you can.

Vhaeyne

Dygz wrote: »

LMFAO!!
I been KOS for stuff I've said in the forums way before now.
The only reason to block people in the first place is because they've caused you grief and diplomacy already failed.
I'm not going to regret blocking people I block.

I'll leave it to you to decide when to unblock someone and open the channel for diplomacy when getting killed all day is no longer fun.

Sometimes a simple conversation is all that is needed to make your worst enemy your strongest ally.

Noaani

Grihm wrote: »

If i refuse you service, that is my right.

This is what is at question for me.

As I said earlier in this thread, there are very few countries that have this right - the right for a business to refuse to sell to an individual for any reason other than a select few.

In most of the world, legal rights generally err towards the disadvantaged party, which is generally the purchaser, not the seller. As such, most of the world give buyers the legal right to buy off who ever they wish, and if they are willing to pay the asked for price, unless there is a very specific reason why the seller can not sell to that person (restricted items being the most common), the seller is compelled to sell to the buyer.

It is a very odd situation in which rights are afforded to the party with more power (sellers of items are generally large companies, buyers of items are generally individuals).

Grihm

@Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.

Noaani wrote: »

Grihm wrote: »

If i refuse you service, that is my right.

This is what is at question for me.

As I said earlier in this thread, there are very few countries that have this right - the right for a business to refuse to sell to an individual for any reason other than a select few.

In most of the world, legal rights generally err towards the disadvantaged party, which is generally the purchaser, not the seller. As such, most of the world give buyers the legal right to buy off who ever they wish, and if they are willing to pay the asked for price, unless there is a very specific reason why the seller can not sell to that person (restricted items being the most common), the seller is compelled to sell to the buyer.

It is a very odd situation in which rights are afforded to the party with more power (sellers of items are generally large companies, buyers of items are generally individuals).

I don´t think AoC will be created with any RL trade and seller systems, but this is a game element, and if someone approaches another and has an offer, or want to do some trade, the other part can say, no. I would say it´s not much more advanced than that. Reason....well who knows, but still, it´s up to one and each.

This is also an RP element, as a guild could be a supporter to an enemy faction or what not..and thus any sales is off the table.

Noaani

Grihm wrote: »

I don´t think AoC will be created with any RL trade and seller systems, but this is a game element, and if someone approaches another and has an offer, or want to do some trade, the other part can say, no. I would say it´s not much more advanced than that. Reason....well who knows, but still, it´s up to one and each.

Indeed.

In most of the world (where the rights generally fall to the buyer not the seller), if you are walking down the street and I say I want to buy your shoes, you are under no obligation to sell them to me.

If you set up a stall and say you are selling those same shoes for a set amount of money, if I offer you that amount of money, you are compelled to sell them to me.

This is also an RP element, as a guild could be a supporter to an enemy faction or what not..and thus any sales is off the table.

I don't see how this could ever be a factor, considering marketplaces are specific to the node (mostly).

If you support a rival "faction", that would mean you are from a rival node. Sell your wares in your own node and this will mean that you can prevent those rivals buying your wares simply due to preventing them from getting to your node.

As to RP, adding RP elements to the game is fine - but not to the point that they impact on the rest of the playerbase.

tautau

I wonder if two nodes are at war, if the markets in the nodes will be closed to each other? I think that this is likely, but that is just my surmise.

Grihm

tautau wrote: »

I wonder if two nodes are at war, if the markets in the nodes will be closed to each other? I think that this is likely, but that is just my surmise.

Sounds very likely. I assume that would be, either done by default, or perhaps that is something for each of the leaders to decide.

Noaani

I would be surprised if they needed to actually prevent players from using services in a node they are at war with.

Node wars are likely to last a number of hours, and only during prime time.

Going in to a node that you are at war with - meaning citizens of that node will have reason to kill you, and you are likely KoS to their guards - is not likely to be a high priority.

Vhaeyne

Grihm wrote: »

@Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.

What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.

Merek

Dygz wrote: »

I wouldn't want mats from characters I don't like. That's not a problem.

Grihm wrote: »

Then we buy from characters not on the trade black list.

That wasn't what I was insinuating, but alright.

Grihm

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Grihm wrote: »

@Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.

What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.

I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.

I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.

Noaani

Grihm wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Grihm wrote: »

Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.

What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.

I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.

I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.

This isn't answering the direct question that was asked of you in the post you quoted.

It actually just points out that you do not, in fact, read what others are saying - which was the point behind the direct question that was asked of you.

Grihm

Noaani wrote: »

Grihm wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

Grihm wrote: »

Vhaeyne We are done bud, and you have stated your opinion...quite clear.

What exactly is my opinion?
I am curious if you listen to anything anyone says on here, or if you just ignore criticism.

I have listened to you, i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.

I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.

This isn't answering the direct question that was asked of you in the post you quoted.

It actually just points out that you do not, in fact, read what others are saying - which was the point behind the direct question that was asked of you.

What about i do not agree is missed here? A discussion can be done with even if people do not yield.
And that is exactly whats going on here. I cannot convince you of anything, as you cannot convince me. I have stated several times, let´s just agree to disagree, and that´s where i stand.

Dygz

Noanni can't do that. Which is why they are on my ignore list.

Grihm

Dygz wrote: »

Noanni can't do that. Which is why they are on my ignore list.

I would prefer to not have to even use my list, but it´s up to one and each, but if they persist, last resort at least.

Vhaeyne

Grihm wrote: »

I have listened to you

I guess I will take your word for it.

Grihm wrote: »

i have read it, but in many ways i disagree. You have all rights in the world to express your opinion, but i have no obligations to agree. When arguing for a time, people enter a stale area, and it becomes non constructive. You are set in your opinion, as am i in mine.

I would say, let us agree to disagree, and let it be.

Keep in mind, the only hard opinion I gave was that I worry about how the feature could be abused. Noanni gave a solid example of how your feature can ruin espionage.

I actually recommended that you guys ask for a whitelist in addition to or instead of a black list. Based on hearing how some of you would plan to use your proposed feature.

Beyond that, all I have done is explored the possible realities of using your proposed feature. You have taken the time to disagree with everything I put forth in this thread, which is something I welcome. I prefer all ideas are attacked from all prospective. Without doing this, we are all just mindlessly agreeing that things are good without seeing the full picture.

What is sad is that the conversation has not entered a stale area yet. There are plenty of benefits and flaws to explore in your idea, but you only seem to think exploring the benefits is progress.

What is worst is that I am far from set in my opinion on this particular topic. When I am proposing additional features that work in tandem with your feature, that is not being "Set in my opinion.". Player stall block lists just screams of a feature with possible exploits. If we don't explore the downsides, we will end up with another family summoning system. A feature that probably sounded great when Intrepid was thinking it up, but has only been contested by the community.

I invite you to read my replies as the constructive criticism they are intended to be. If we were face to face at a bar discussing this, we would be light years ahead on this topic. I am sure of that.

Child Item